I don't Twitter (or is it tweet?).  But I can't claim total purity, since I have facebook, myspace, and I blog.  Still, I've been purposefully avoiding the Tweet scene because it seemed to me to represent the worst of the other three.  No genuine conversation or community whatsoever, just an endless flow of (mostly trivial) information. 

I may rethink this position.  Not only did Abraham Piper point out that a narcissist is a narcissist regardless of where he is or how he spreads his narcissism (i.e. the powers of Twitter can be used for both good and evil, it all depends on the person), but the boys at Middlebrow (the podcast of Scriptorium Daily) have brought up a point worth considering:  If Christians are called to witness to the world and bring the gospel to the marketplace, and our marketplace is Twitter, isn't that exactly where we should go? 

It certainly is.  Christians who avoid new technologies and cultural trends altogether are not paying attention to the book of Acts.  Meeting unbelievers where they are and speaking their language is essential to evangelism.  But there's a danger lurking.  I would not be the least bit surprised to hear someone advocating "Twitter church" pretty soon.  This would be nothing new, of course.  Evangelicals have been advocating a move away from traditional church structures to private religion for years.  The point is that God knows what he's doing, and it's not up to us to decide to change the rules of the game. 

Dr. Reynolds has noted that Christianity is a religion of a book, not a movie.  This means that, however good it is that we are becoming more and more video literate as a culture, we can't allow our normal literacy to decline, because God isn't likely to send us an inspired DVD any time soon.  As a Christian, being video literate is important for witnessing to a video culture, but we can't allow ourselves to lose the ability to read and interpret a written text.  If we do, we will lose our only direct tie to the foundation of Christianity itself, the Word of God.

Likewise, Tweeting is not preaching.  In the Old Testament, the Word of God was delivered to messengers called Prophets, who personally and incarnationally brought that Word to the people.  In the Apostolic age, the Word was made flesh and the gospel of that Word was delivered by the Apostles through preaching.  It is in hearing the preached Word that God has promised to meet his people, to create and increase faith, and to seal believers with the Holy Spirit.  This simply can't happen on Twitter.

Just as we need to become more video literatre while not losing our ability to read and understand written texts, we must be careful not to let our increased Twitteracy diminish our ability to engange in genuine communication with real people in real community.  The more we retreat into Twitter and other online communites, the less at home we will feel in true, physical communities (such as church).  The body of Christ, like the Son of God Himself, is incarnational. 

Allen Yeh, a Professor at Biola Univeristy and tutor in the Torrey Honors Institute, has written an article in which he argues that missions is the central theme of Christianity.  The Bible, he says, is a means to an end, and that end is missions.

He offers many reasons for his choice of missions, such as the fact that all of the Apostles were missionaries, Jesus' lasts words on Earth were a call to missions, there is a whole book (Acts) devoted to chronicling missionary activites (and on top of that, most of Paul's letters are written in a missionary context), etc. 

Now, I agree with nearly everything that Dr. Yeh says.  Missions is an extremely important biblical theme, and it's one that can tend to be denegrated among academic theologian types (like myself).  At one point, Yeh comments, "The center of gravity of Christianity has shifted away from the Western world, and most of the Christians in this world are now in Asia, Africa, and Latin America."  This is no small matter.  Christianity is incurably multi-cultural and this is a direct result of its missional nature.  But is "missions" in and of itself really the "central theme" of Christianity?  If the Bible is a means to missions, might we ask if missions isn't a means to something else?

Yeh does stop to mention a few other candidates:

scholars have proposed various possibilities for what might be the main theme of the Bible. Some people say it’s the Kingdom of God. Some say it’s God’s sovereignty. Others say it’s God’s love. Still others say it’s worship (one of the most famous proponents of the last is John Piper, as he says in his book Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions, “Missions exists because worship doesn’t”). Other possibilities include: the two Greatest Commandments (love God and love neighbor); the Great Commission (there are actually five Great Commissions, one in each Gospel and one in Acts); the Covenant; the Promise; and the glory of God. While I think all of these are valid, again I would argue that it is only mission that adequately encompasses all of these.

Later on, referring back to the reference to John Piper above, Yeh says:

Now it is here that I beleive Dr. Yeh falls into a common error that has plauged evangelicalism for a long time.  He places the proclaimation of the gospel exclusively in the realm of missions.  It is easy to see, then, why missions itself would become the central theme of the Bible.  A few paragraphs later, he says, "In most Protestant churches, the central part of the worship service is the sermon. The original function of the sermon was evangelism, as seen in the Greek word kerygma which means “proclamation” (of the Good News)."  Again, proclaimation of the good news is used here as a synonym for evangelism.  But this not how the Biblical authors treated the gospel.  Paul, in his letter to the Romans, begins (in chapter 1, verse 8) by thanking God for the church in Rome, because their "faith is proclaimed in all the world."  They are Christians (and apparently Christians of amazing faith) not pagans in need of evangelism.  And what does Paul go on to do?  In verse 15 he says, "So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome."  The first thing Paul does is proclaim the good news, to those who are already Christians.  This is how the gospel is treated in Scripture.  It is not a one-time bit of useful information that, once responded to, is no longer necessary.  It is the heart and soul of all Christian teaching and worship.  This is something that the Reformers recognized, which is why the sermon did become so central to Protestant Christianity.  Thus it would probably be better to view Missions and the local church worship service as two seperate but equal "pillars" that are the foundation of Christianity.  Both are important, both are commanded by Christ, and both are acts of worship that encompass all the myriad themes found in the Bible.  Theologians may have a tendency to forget about the unreached (except as an abstract theological concept in their systems), but missiologists can also have a tendency to forget about the reached! 

I also think Piper's comment is worth returning to, because I think Yeh may have misunderstood it.  When Piper says, "Missions exists because worship doesn’t", I doubt that he's trying to say that worship per se is the central theme of Christianity.  Once again, worship is a means to an end, and that end is to glorify God.  It seems to me that missionary activity is also a means to an end.  It is a means to bringing people to Christ, allowing them to come into his presence and worship Him, and ultimately spend eternity with him.  And as Yeh pointed out, missions can itself be an act of worship, which would in turn be an act of glorifying God.  Thus missions is not only an act of glorifying God in itself, but a means to the end of furthering God's glory throughout the world.  This is probably what Piper is getting at, and it seems to me to be the best understanding of the true central theme of Christianity.  Yeh is right to stress how important missions is, but we must always remember WHY it is so imporant (for the glory of God).  

The videos of all speaker addresses and panel discussions from this year's T4G conference are available online for free at Ligonier.org (for a limited time).  These conferences are amazing, encouraging (and often humorous) and it would be well worth your time to watch the videos (if you don't have a lot of time, just watch the panel discussions!)

Check them out here. 

Unfortunately this will not be a book review.  I haven’t had the opportunity yet to read the book, though I plan to in the near future.  I did however read the Christianity Today article bearing the same title two years ago, and I’ve seen, heard or read several interviews with the author (here's a good one).  Here I simply wish to make a few comments in light of a recent study done by ChurchRelevence.com (more on that in a moment).

Basically, a good chunk o’ Christian youth (roughly 18 – 25) are moving away from the Arminian, mainstream evangelicalism of their childhood toward (to differing degrees) classical Reformed theology (the primary motive being, at least according to the CT article, a desire for deeper theology grounded in historic creeds and confessions).  The majority of the credit for this Renaissance of Reformed thought is given to John Piper.  Because of his passionate preaching and evident concern for world missions, Piper has managed to break into circles (such as the annual Passion Conference) that were previously closed, sometimes even hostile, to Reformed theology.   Thus, Let The Nations Be Glad became a “gateway drug” to Piper’s deeply Reformed emphasis on the radical sinfulness of man, the radical holiness of God, and His absolute sovereignty in all things. 

All this makes sense to me (and I have no doubt that it’s true), but as a blogger, I can’t help but wonder if the recent advent of New Media has contributed to this exodus into the Reformed promised land.  R. C. Sproul was on the cutting edge in the late 80’s and 90’s.  Ligonier made use of every available medium of communication, from radio to cassette tapes, to videos.  Now Dr. Sproul’s teaching series are available daily on the internet and satellite TV.  So, you might ask, why wasn’t there a Reformed Renaissance in the 90’s?  I think it has been slowly building.  Many today who are in the 18 – 25 bracket could have grown up with Dr. Piper’s or Dr. Sproul’s ministries, or their parents could have been first introduced to it.  The use of so many different forms of media mean that some folk who would not have otherwise been exposed to Reformed teaching had the opportunity to see loving, Christ-like pastors and teachers arguing passionately for the clear teaching of Scripture as expressed by historic Reformation theology.  Both Piper and Sproul (and others), it must be admitted, break the mold of what most non-Reformed people tend to think of Reformed people (or worse…Calvinists!).  The point being, there have probably been 1,000 John Pipers preaching faithfully to their small Reformed congregations over the last 100 years, but no one outside their limited communities knew them.  And no one would actually pick up the writings of Calvin or Edwards because of the stigma surrounding “Calvinism.”  Godly men like John Piper, in most cases, remove that stigma.

Now fast forward to 2009.  ChurchRelevance.com has posted a list of the “Top 60 Church Blogs.”  As I looked at the list I was suddenly struck by how many of these blogs are Reformed (some of them are even “confessional”!).  Not only are the top 2 blogs Reformed, which really says something all by itself, but of the 60, a total of 10 are definitely Reformed, at least 1 (the Evangelical Outpost, formerly of Joe Carter) was Calvinist, though Joe didn’t wear it on his sleeve, and perhaps 2 or 3 others as well, but I’m not confident enough to say for sure.  Now 10 – 12 isn’t a LOT out of 60, but consider that no other single theological strain or movement has nearly so many (the Emergent movement had 3 or 4 by my count). 

Now, the correlation-causation relationship is always tricky.  Are there so many popular Reformed blogs because of the movement, or has the movement grown, at least in part, because of so many average Reformed Joes and more-than-average Reformed mega-stars getting into New Media and using it more effectively than the other guys?  I can’t really say for sure, but given what I’ve seen happen with New Media in other arenas over the past decade, I’m inclined to think the latter. 

Has anyone read Hansen’s book?  Does he address this issue at all, and if so, what does he have to say? 

In honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, Westminster Seminary California's 2008 Conference is on the lasting legacy of John Calvin's life and work for the contemporary church.  The conference is tonight from 6 - 9pm and tomorrow from 8am - 2:45pm.  Unfortunately it is sold out, but for those of you interested in following the conference online, Dr. Scott Clark (Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at WSC) will be live blogging here.  The live blogging will begin right at 6pm tonight and run through the whole length of the conference (minus Dr. Clark's session, if he can't find someone to fill in for him). 

You can subscribe via RSS feed here. 

Also, here is the conference schedule.  And here are the speaker bios. 

Molly Worthen has written an interesting article for The New York Times Magazine on Mark Driscoll and his "hip" Mars Hill Church entitled Who Would Jesus Smack Down? 

The point of her article seems to be to highlight the "paradoxes" that surround Mars Hill.  Not only is it an Evangelical church where the pastor swears and talks explicitly about sex and the members are pierced and tatooed.  Not only is it a thriving megachurch in the Country's most secular and unchurched city.  But Driscoll preaches a hard-edged, no-holding-back Complementarianism and Calvinism.  The paradoxes here being that Complementarianism, which teaches that women ought to be functionally subordinate to men in the church, is helping men in the congregation to treat women better than in their non-Christian days, and Calvinism, which teaches the total depravity and moral inability of all people, is creating a church of passionate activists and evangelists. 

I'd only like to make 2 comments and then I'll just let you read the article for yourself.  First, Worthen doesn't really seem to know any actual history of Calvin or his work in Geneva.  At one point she comments on Driscoll's unwillingness to compromise and how quick he is to "shun" church elders or revoke a congregant's member privaleges when they voice disagreement with him, suggesting that Driscoll is just like Calvin in this respect.  She then goes on to say, "John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness."  As far as I know Calvin only oversaw the burning of one person in Geneva, and from several sources I've read the general consensus seems to be that he was reluctant (perhaps even unwilling).  As to the other charge, I'd really like to know where she gets this story from.  Dr. Scott Clark comments,


In any case, my point is that her assessment of Driscoll's Calvinism would be far less paradoxical if she better understood the theology, the history, even the man himself (I noticed that most of her quotes come from random members of the congregation, rather than elders or Drsicoll himself.  I wonder why that is).

Lastly, some of the things she says about Drsicoll's disciplining practices are a bit alarming.  In traditional Reformed churches, it could take years to officailly excommunicate someone, and in my denomination (URC) the final step cannot be taken until a regional assembly of elders is called.  Again, as Dr. Clark (half jokingly) comments, "shunning is an Anabaptist practice." 

I'd like to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt for now.  I really hope he isn't practicing a dangerous kind of authoritarianism that could backfire. 

Read Worthen's article here. 

Newsweek's cover story last week read "The Religious Case For Gay Marriage."  Inside, Lisa Miller's article "Our Mutual Joy" attempted to argue that the Bible actually supports gay marriage. 

Read her article here.

Two very insightful responses have already gone up from Al Mohler and John Mark Reynolds.  Rather than responding myself, I will simply point you to them. 

Al Mohler:  Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage

John Mark Reynolds:  An Obvious Truth: The Bible Supports Traditional Marrriage

Oxford's latest version of their Junior Dictionary has undergone a major revision.  In order to reflect the changing times, many words having to do with religion (specifically Christianity), and with a rural setting (such as certain kinds of flowers and trees) are being omitted and replaced with words like "blog" and "MP3 player."  OUP says: 

So here's the logic:  Kids are using blogs and MP3 players now, and they're not going to church anymore.  So, they know what a blog is, but they don't know what a Bishop is or what Pentecost is.  Therefore we are going to remove the definitions of words they don't know and replace them with the definitions of words they do.  This strikes me as one of those examples of someone trying to be relevant and ending up being completely irrelevant.  I didn't even grow up on blogs and MP3 players, but I would never think to look in a dictionary to find out what something new and "techy" means.  An example from my own childhood in the early 90's might be "CD" or "e-mail."  I knew what those things were (even though at the time I didn't have e-mail and I still listened to cassette tapes), I didn't need the dictionary for words like that.  I needed the dictionary to tell me what "marzipan" and "budgerigar" mean. 

Aside from that, there's also a real concern among educators in Britain about losing touch with their country's long, rich, and  very religious heritage. 

Read the full story at The Telegraph. 

(HT: Heidelblog)

Themed Bibles are generally a bad idea.  For one thing, every part of God's Word is meant to speak to every Christian.  Themed Bibles tend to emphasize only the parts of the Bible that speak about the particular theme, leaving other potentially important aspects of Scripture under-emphasized or ignored (and here I'm thinking primarily within the context of "daily devotions"). 

Secondly, Scripture purposefully makes use of many different genres (and different themes!) to convey the Gospel message in the most comprehensive way possible.  A Bible that goes out of its way to draw attention to only a single theme can have the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the Gospel message itself. 

Now, none of this is to say that themed Bibles are inherently sinful or that the dangers I've mentioned will necessarily result from using them (I actually own a Couples' Devotional Bible).  So naturally I didn't think much of the new Green Bible.  I assumed it was just another gimmick.  And on one level, it is that.  The paper used in The Green Bible is 100% recycled, the ink is soy-based, and the cover is made of cotton-linen.  At the beginning is a collection of essays about being a "green" Christian by such international figures as Desmund Tutu, N. T. Wright, and even Pope John Paul II.  But it's most prominent feature is that it is the first ever "green letter edition" of the Bible.  No, the words of Christ are not in green.  Rather, every verse that supposedly speaks to the subject of "Creation Care" is printed in green.  Like I said, it's gimmicky.  And if that's all it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it.   Heck, I'm a sucker for this kind of thing myself.  I want to be a good Steward of God's creation as much as the next Christian.  But then I started poking around the book's website.  As it turns out, the green bible may actually be teaching something dangerously close to idolatry.

Here are some sample questions from The Green Bible Quiz:

"2) Which verse praising creation is from the Psalms?"

The answer is Psalm 19:1, "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork."  What's the problem?  This verse is NOT "praising creation."  It's doing the exact opposite, expressing how creation praises God.  To my mind, this is kind of a big deal (is anyone else thinking of Romans 1:25?).

"4) Where did Jesus go to commune with nature?"

(It's been said before, but it bears repeating here:  Jesus was not a hippy).  The answer to this question is apparently found in Matthew 14:23 (the quiz has the answer as Matthew 4:23, but I assume this is simply a typo), "And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray."  Seriously, are the people responsible for the green "bible" actually reading it?  Jesus didn't go up the mountain to commune with nature!  He went up to pray (literally, to commune with God!).  Stretching the meaning of a verse to make a point is one thing.  Butchering a verse and literally replacing God with nature...that's a whole new ballgame. 

Now, maybe this quiz is just a poorly conceived promotional tool that doesn't refelct the actual content of the green bible.  That's certainly possible.  But if the excerpt they provide from one of the opening essays is any indication, the content is no better than what we've seen so far.  In her essay, "The Dominion of Love", Barbara Brown Taylor says of the sixth day of creation:

The "new information" she is referring to is that land animals were also created on day six.  Apparently Ms. Taylor was under the impression that the only thing that made human beings special was that we had a whole day all to ourselves.  She also mentions our being given dominion over the earth, and the fact that God pronounces all of His creation to be good, not just man, but all of this is merely peripheral to the real issue.  If she had consulted even the most elementary level Bible scholarship, instead of simply assuming what I can only imagine are her culturally-inherited misconceptions about traditional Christian teaching, she would have seen very quickly that mankind's special place in creation is founded upon our unique status as image bearers of God.  As it stands, the main point of her essay ends up missing the point entirely. 

I would like to invite comments and feedback from anyone who might be willing to defend the green bible.  It's still possible that I've made egregious leaps and  assumed things based on these short previews that aren't really true of the bible itself.  So if anyone owns a copy and would like to defend it, I'm open to hearing your arguments. 

Like I said, I have no problem becoming "green."  I will probably never buy an SUV (as if that's all it means to be green!).  I really do want to be a good steward of God's creation.  But if the only way to join the "green team" is to accept poor theology and pseudo biblical scholarship that effectively butchers the Word of God...we evangelicals will have to work on starting our own team.  I have no doubt that "God is green" (in a sense, at least), but if He is, He ought to have said so.  We shouldn't have to twist His words to make them say something they're not really saying. 

Thanks to Aaron Gleason for passing this link along to me.

I sure am glad that we Evangelicals have moved on to caring about more important social issues. Because if we still cared about protecting the unborn, we'd be in rough shape right now.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert%20P._Obama's%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

Like I said...please pray for Barack Obama.